Monday, November 7, 2016

A Look At the Evidence: #1 Getting to and Leaving Cielo Drive

The Leading Question. A leading question is a question that
suggests the answer in the question or a question that contains the information
the examiner is trying to confirm. The use of leading questions is impermissible
except in the case of a hostile witness. Why? The answers are unreliable- the
examiner is directing or influencing the evidence presented. He is, as a
practical matter, testifying, not the witness. So generally, they can only be
used on cross-examination. The use of leading questions is a tactic designed as
the name implies to 'lead' the witness to the answer you want.

Coaching A Witness. This is a topic that frequently comes up: “Bugliosi told so and so what to say”. Most attorneys don’t coach
witnesses like that. Some do,
however, offer critical information during the pre-trial interview process
hoping and sometimes even suggesting that it might be remembered. Sometimes someone other then the attorney actually makes the suggestion.

Can you spot
a coached witness? Yes. How? They sound coached. They blurt out the programmed
answer before the question is finished or before they are actually asked about the
subject. Sometimes they blurt out the answer several times in response to
questions unrelated to the programmed subject. And if they made a previous inconsistent
statement they usually say some third party, who is not going to testify, or some other event refreshed their recollection.

Occam’s Razor. Among competing
hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
It is well to keep this rule in mind when evaluating witness testimony. Some answers
just sound ‘off’- they don’t make sense because they are illogical or appear contrary
to human behavior. They just 'don't make no sense'. The only way, then, to try to get the witness's answer back on
track is for the lawyer supporting the testimony to add assumptions or facts from outside that steer the
testimony back to the story. When
attempted during a trial the objection from the other side is usually ‘the question assumes facts not in
evidence’. Usually, however, the assumptions appear during closing argument when the lawyer desperately tries to explain by making assumptions for
which there is no evidence. That seldom ends well.Objective Evidence. Sometimes answers are directly contradicted by the physical evidence or evidence that is unassailable. Words Matter. The words a witness chooses to use in describing an event or in response to a question are important and give hints to the listener regarding the testimony and its reliability. For example a typical answer can go like this: "To the best of my knowledge as I sit hear today I have no recollection of that." This really means 'if you prove I'm wrong I'll change my answer.'

The
Official Narrative

What happened during these crimes is the story presented and
told by the prosecution starting with the Tate-LaBianca trial and ending with Bugliosi’s book Helter Skelter. The story (not to be confused with the motive) has two primary sources. There are a few corroborating witnesses (these are
essential given that the primary sources are co-conspirators) but these witnesses
just confirm certain moments along the storyline.

The primary evidence for the official narrative comes from Susan
Atkins reflected in her Grand Jury testimony and Linda Kasabian in her
testimony at the Tate-LaBianca and the Watson trials.

The Arrival and
Departure from Cielo Drive

The official narrative tells us the murderers arrived at
Cielo drive from Spahn’s Ranch at approximately midnight August 9, 1969. Steven
Parent was murdered sometime shortly after 12:15 a.m. and the murderers drove away from Cielo at about 12:55 a.m. to reach Rudolph Weber’s hose bib by 1:00 a.m.

Bugliosi clearly wants to prove this timeline. He spends a good deal of time trying to establish it. Why? He wants Tim
Ireland hearing screams in evidence for the shock value. He wants to corroborate
Kasabian’s story using Weber.

He also wants to establish
and follow a timeline to make it easier for the listener (the jury) to follow the story. Detail also makes 'reasonable doubt' less likely. Concepts like 'about noon' work against the prosecutor. Detail also adds to the credibility of a witness.

Bugliosi may also have wanted the time to be nailed down to limit an alibi defense. It is harder to prove an alibi when the timeframe is narrow or detailed. And.... Bugliosi also seems to have been obsessed
with a clock radio.

The narrative relies on the following corroborating
evidence:

There is the phone call to Gerrold David Friedman by Steven
Parent at 11:45 p.m.

That same Sunday, Jerrold D. Friedman, a UCLA student,
contacted the police and informed them that the call Steven Parent made at approximately
11: 45 on Friday night had been to him.Bugliosi, Vincent; Curt Gentry. Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson
Murders (p. 68). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

Interestingly, while Bugliosi states this time he actually
stipulated at the Watson trial that the call was at 11:55 p.m.

(Witold Kaczanowski
didn’t testify. However, he did tell the police that Frykowski called him at
‘about midnight’ on the night of the murders.)

Rudy Weber’s testimony is the other bookend for the crime.
At 1:00 a.m. the murderers are at his house.

Then there is a clock radio, which, according to Bugliosi, was forever frozen at 12:15 a.m.....

“On the seat next to him was a Sony AM– FM Digimatic clock radio.
The time at which it had stopped was 12:15 A.M. Coincidence or significant?”Bugliosi, Vincent; Curt Gentry. Helter
Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders (pp. 43-44). W. W. Norton &
Company. Kindle Edition.

Below is an image of what purports to be the actual
clock radio. I could not corroborate this fact and the tag to the left ‘looks’
wrong to me although the one at the top edge looks similar to others (what little can
be seen). But if it is, in fact, the radio it stopped at 12:19, not 12:15. (Perhaps
someone with the full trial transcript or some other source could verify if
Exhibit 198 was indeed the clock radio. Or maybe someone knows the source of
this image if it is a fake. A friend trying to help sent it to me but didn't record where he found it.)

According to the official narrative the murderers first cut the phone line. Then they drove the car down Cielo Drive and parked. After
parking the car they walked back up to the gate and climbed the fence after
scaling the embankment to the right of the gate. Here they saw Steven Parent’s
approaching headlights. Watson told the rest to lie down and then commanded
Steven to stop. And it began....

Getting To Cielo

How long did it take to get to Cielo Drive?

A Google map search indicates that the shortest route from Spahn Ranch to Cielo Drive should take 37 minutes.

But given Atkins’
testimony before the Grand Jury it might have taken a bit longer.

Q: Did Tex drive
you directly to Terry Melcher's former residence?

A: We sort of got
lost on the way. I think we took a wrong turn and ended up somewhere in
Mulholland and we went directly there.

Kasabian sort of confirms the one hour drive time if the high end of her range is used.

Kasabian at TLB:

Q. How long
after you left Spahn Ranch did it take you to get to this house?

A. I don't
know. I have no idea of time. Maybe a half hour or an hour.

Q. A half hour
or an hour?

A. Yes.

At the Watson
trial she narrowed that range a bit:

Q: How long did it take you to get to the
place from Spahn Ranch?

A: I don't know. Not too long, I guess, but I
don't know the time.

Q: Could you give us any idea? Did it take
five minutes, four hours, an hour, what?

A: Probably around an hour, I guess.

Note Bugliosi’s
leading question. It is a nice tactic. He offers two time periods that are absurd and
then he offers the one he wants. Based on the leading question an hour may not
be right but let’s give it to Bugliosi, as an hour seems consistent with
Atkins’ testimony that he had already heard, which is probably why he asked the leading question.

Now we have an
elapsed time of 1:00.

When did they leave Spahn?

Atkins and Kasabian never mention a specific time unless Bugliosi
first offers one to them. They operate off of ‘Family’ time. 'Family' time doesn't use clocks.

The official narrative says Manson approached Kasabian and
Atkins on August 8th and told them to get a knife, a second set of
cloths (or two sets) and in Kasabian’s case her driver’s license. This occurred
‘after dinner’.

When was dinner?

Kasabian at TLB (I have added the emphasis):

Q. Do you know
about what time you commenced to eat?

A. It was
usually after sundown, so whatever time that is, I don't know.

Q. How long did
it take you to eat your dinner?

A. Oh, dinnertime
was really funtime, so maybe an hour, and then we --- maybe we
would talk or sing songs or maybe he [Charlie] would play his guitar or
whatever.

And:

Q. And did
anything unusual happen after dinner that night?

A. Yes. I
remember I was in the kitchen, cleaning up, and maybe just sitting around.

Q. How long
after dinner was this?

A. Maybe an
hour, or so.

And her
testimony at Watson’s Trial:

Q: About what time did you have dinner?

A: I don't know, about the same time we had it
every night, after dark.

Taken together it
appears Manson approached Kasabian 2-3 hours after dinner started. The
difference depends on whether, and if so, how long, Manson played guitar.

Next Kasabian needs
to get a knife, her license and some cloths. Recall she had some problems with
two of these tasks so add ten minutes for her to get into the car. Add five if
it is preferred or even leave it out. I chose 10.

The elapsed Time to
arrive at Cielo Drive: 1 hour to drive from Spahn to Cielo + 1 hour for dinner
+ 1 hour later for Charlie to approach her +10 minutes to get her stuff = 3:10
Hours.

This becomes 4:10
if Manson held the jam session.

So now we have two
scenarios: Dinner Only (3:10) and Jam Session (4:10).

According to
Kasabian dinner started either after sunset or after dark. So the starting
point is to figure out when these events happened.

Family Time

The Family didn’t use clocks or calendars. Their notion of
time related to the sun. It comes up and it gets light. It goes down and it
gets dark. A timeline requires a clock. So is there a way to convert Family
time to clock time?

There is. It is called the Farmer’s Almanac. The Farmer’s
Almanac was something my mother, a farm girl, lived by. She would tell you in
March whether the corn would be any good that year because of the almanac.

The Farmer’s Almanac tells us when the sun starts to set
(sunset) and when it gets dark (dark descends). It also tells us when the sun
begins to rise (dawn) and when it is fully light (sunrise).

According to the Farmer’s Almanac sunset occurred in Los
Angeles on August 8, 1969 at 7:46 p.m. and dark descended at 9:20 p.m. Dawn on
the 9th of August occurred at 4:37 a.m. and sunrise occurred at 6:11
a.m.

This is going to give us a way to convert ‘Family’ time as
two witnesses testify below.

Based upon sunset
and dark under the Dinner Only scenario and the elapsed time of 3:10. They arrive
between 10:56 p.m. and 12:30 a.m.

Under the Jam
Session scenario with its elapsed time of 4:10 they arrive between 11:56 p.m.
and 1:30 a.m.

Taken together this places their arrival between 10:56 p.m. and 1:30 a.m.

Does the testimony
narrow this range?

I can’t get past
the use of the words “we had it [dinner] every night, after dark”. This
seems to be a recurring event that stuck in Kasabian’s memory and is consistent
with her more general statement ‘after sundown’. She never says ‘sunset’. 'After
dark' seems to mean ‘after it is dark’.

It became dark that
night at 9:20 p.m. so dinner was after 9:20 p.m. on August 8th
and then they arrived at Cielo Drive sometime after either 12:30 a.m. (the
Dinner Only scenario) or 1:30 a.m. (Jam Session).

Either scenario
allows all the phone calls to be made. It also allows the Knott’s guests to
comfortably leave and the Knotts to go to bed with no hippies lurking about and
no downed phone lines. It also allows Mr. Ireland to stick to his original
statement.

The First Tate
Homicide Investigation report notes:

“Between 0100 and
0130 Mr. Ireland was awake, alert and watching the sleeping children. He heard
a male voice from what seemed to him a long distance away to the north or
northeast shout, 'Oh, God, no. Stop. Stop. Oh, God, no, don't'. Ireland said
that the scream persisted for approximately 10 seconds. The male voice was
clear and he did not notice an accent.”

At trial,
presumably also after having spoken to someone at the DA‘s office in
preparation for trial, Mr. Ireland changed his answer. He now places the screams at precisely 12:40 a.m. basing the change on what 'Mr. Sparks' told him regarding
the time. This conversation with Mr. Sparks happened sometime after Ireland spoke to the
police. Mr. Sparks did not testify.

And our two
witnesses actually appear to agree with the later time.

Kasabian at TLB [my
comments]:

Q. About what
time did you arrive at the place?

A. I don't
know.

Q. Now, give me
an approximation.

A. Maybe around
the middle of the night. It was dark for 4 or 5 hours, after it had
been dark.

Q. Four or 5
hours after it became dark? [Her statement obviously threw Bugliosi.]

A. Yes. [Stop
right here! Anything she says next is unreliable. She answered the question
twice.]

_____________

Q. Now, when
you say the middle of the night do you mean 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning or do
you mean midnight? [Bugliosi suggests the answer by leading the witness. Also
note the lawyer tactic: just like the leading question above he offers as an alternative to his
desired response an absurd timeframe. This is intended to funnel the witness to
midnight since 3:00 a.m. is too late even by Kasabian’s concept of time.]

MR.KANAREK:
Compound, your Honor, leading and suggestive. [Kanarek realizes something is up
but misses by making too many objections. Strike 1.]

MR.BUGLIOSI: It
is not a compound question, it is one single question. [This is very good
lawyering- a good tactic. He ignores the good objection, 'leading', and focuses
on the ‘compound’ objection. Bugliosi is right the question is not compound. But he
never addresses the ‘leading’ objection. The question is clearly leading he’s
suggesting the answer in his question.]

MR.KANAREK: He
is arguing with the witness, your Honor. [Kanarek fumbles the ball making a
third objection. Strike Two]

THE COURT:
Overruled. [Strike 3]

A. I cannot say
a definite time because, as I said before, I had no concept of time when I was
there. I would say roughly around midnight. [And Bugliosi leads a reluctant
Kasabian to the answer he wants.]

Now before
Bugliosi ‘helps’ Kasabian say ‘midnight’ she places their arrival 4-5 hours
after dark. Dark was 9:20 p.m. So they arrive between 1:20 and 2:20 a.m. Remember the 4:15 Jam Session scenario
above? If, in our Jam Session scenario, we have Charlie play guitar after
dinner for a while. The 4-5 hours after dark timeframe is consistent with that
scenario. The Jam Session scenario is also consistent with her unassisted
recollection of the arrival time: they arrive 4-5 hours after dark or around
1:20 a.m.

Bugliosi leads Kasabian to the answer he wants at Watson's trial too. Q: Okay, about what time did you arrive at the gate
at the top of the hill, approximately?A: Time? I don't know.Q: Well, was it 3:00 in the morning, midnight, eleven
--

A: It was
probably around midnight.

Again, look at Bugliosi's tactic he offers her two times that can't possibly be right and the one that he wants. The question is 'leading' only in this trial Mr. Bubrick doesn't object.

Atkins, before she too is lead to the 'midnight' answer, appears to agree with Kasabian's original estimate:

Q: Do you know
about what time you arrived at that residence?

A: I just know
it was late at night. [Stop!]

__________

Q: Around
midnight? [Leading]

A:
Possibly.[This is not really the answer he
wanted. He was looking for a ‘yes’.]

So here he is
again leading Atkins to the time he wants but midnight does not appear to be completely
consistent with her recollection. She answers ‘possibly’ even to his leading
question. Her first impression was that it was ‘late at night’. ‘Late at night’
sounds a lot like Kasabian’s ‘the middle of the night’ which Kasabian further
defines as 4-5 hours after dark or, again, after 1:20 a.m.

Leading questions are permissible before the Grand Jury. There is no judge present to rule on an objection and more to the point there is no opposing lawyer there to make the objection.

It is easy to
challenge Kasabian’s accuracy, in fact its one of my pet projects. But she has
no reason to lie about the time. She doesn’t care about ‘time’ but Bugliosi does. You can almost hear her thinking ‘why does this matter’ when
answering the questions.

What can be
said is that the only person who testified that they arrived at midnight was
Bugliosi. One might also ask why do they need to arrive at midnight? According to these two witnesses, they didn't.

The Other Bookend: Rudy Weber

A cook at the Brentwood Country Club calls LAPD and says
Rudolf Weber saw the killers hosing off at his house on the night of the
murders. On December 29, 1969 Bugliosi, a police photographer and Detective
Calkins go to Weber’s house, interview him and take some pictures. Later that
same day he is interviewed a second time by the LAPD and that interview is
recorded. Weber later testifies that the hose event occurs at 1:00 a.m.
thus putting the other bookend on Bugliosi’s timeline.

Weber’s house is about 4 minutes from Cielo Drive per Google
Maps. So Bugliosi’s timeline is tight. He needs them to pull everything off
by 12:56 and be back at the car ready to drive to Weber’s hose. The four
minutes may not be right either. They at least drove past Weber’s house and
then turned around and parked down the street walking back to the hose.

If Steven Parent is murdered a few minutes after 12:15
everything has to happen in less then 40 minutes. This might explain why
Bugliosi didn’t want the clock to read 12:19. If that image is authentic then
even under Bugliosi’s timetable Steven was shot sometime after 12:19- call it
12:25. Now he has less then 30 minutes.

Experience tells me anytime Bugliosi says a witness is going
to be a very good witness I start to worry about the accuracy of what they say.
In Helter Skelter he does just that:

“As I listened to Weber’s story, I knew he was going to be a
good witness. He had an excellent memory, told exactly what he remembered, and
didn’t try to fill in what he did not.” Bugliosi, Vincent; Curt Gentry. Helter
Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders (p. 249). W. W. Norton &
Company. Kindle Edition.

We don’t know what Bugliosi or Calkins said to Weber when
they met that morning at Weber's house. We do know they parked their car in the same position as the
murderers and took some pictures.

We also know what he told Detective Calkins later that
afternoon (thanks to Cielodrive.com):

RUDOLF WEBER: Well, to the best of my recollection…we
went to bed around 9 o’clock which is our usual bed time –

SGT. ROBERT
CALKINS: Who…Who is we? excuse
me.

RUDOLF WEBER: My wife and I.

SGT. ROBERT
CALKINS: Would you identify
your wife, please?

RUDOLF WEBER: Her name in Mila(?)

SGT. ROBERT
CALKINS: Alright, thank you.

RUDOLF WEBER: We, uh – ‘cause I have to
be at work at 6 o’clock in the morning. So, about – it must’ve been about 1
o’clock, I heard the uh, the sound of, running water.

Read this carefully: “We, uh – ‘cause I have to be at work at 6 o’clock
in the morning. So, about – it must’ve been about 1 o’clock, I heard the uh,
the sound of, running water.”

Why must it have been about 1:00? Because he went to bed at 9:00 p.m?

Or it must have been 1:00 because he went to work at 6:00
a.m.?

Why 'must' it have been 1:00 if he actually looked at his clock (as he later testified)? Wouldn't it be more consistent with human behavior to simply say 'It was about 1:00 a.m.'?

Or maybe it must have
been 1:00 because that is what fitthe timeline he had just learned
about. Maybe it went something like this earlier that morning:

“Well these hippy types were using the hose there. It was
the middle of the night. I’m not sure of the time. It was late.”

“Well we know they were over there at midnight and probably
got here an hour later.”

“Well then it must have been about 1:00.”

Interestingly in this interview Weber doesn’t mention
looking at his clock to confirm the time (something he says at trial) and while he briefly mentions his wife being present he doesn't mention his
wife ever confronting the killers (again, something he says at trial- she,
however does not testify because she has ‘emotional issues’). Bugliosi didn’t
know Kasabian’s version of the events until after February 26, 1970 and Rudy's testimony by the trial corroborates Kasabian's recollection.

Rudy's trial testimony:

BUGLIOSI: Did anything unusual happen that night sir, after
you went to bed?

WEBER: Well, it was about 1:00 o’clock in the morning, that
would be Saturday morning.

Wait a minute! Bugliosi
didn’t ask him the time. He asked him if something unusual happened after he
went to bed. The answer is ‘yes’. Instead Weber offers up 1:00 a.m. before he
is even asked.

Weber goes on to now explain
that he looked at his clock (never mentioned on December 29th). Q: How did you know it was about 1:00 o'clock?A: Because I looked at the clock. He then adds the confrontation between his wife and the killers and the whole sheriff’s
deputy thing consitant with Kasabian’s story, but also seems to have slipped
both his mind and Detective Calkins’ on December 29th when Weber was given the opportunity to offer the information.

SGT. ROBERT
CALKINS: Alright. Now, at the
time you followed these people down to the car, did any of them make any
statements at all except the man?

RUDOLF WEBER: Well, after they started towards the car, nobody
said anything.

SGT. ROBERT
CALKINS: I see. Then what was
the only statement the man made?

RUDOLF WEBER: Uh, he only said “Hi” and uh, “We’re just
getting a drink of water, sorry to disturb you” and when I asked him, “Is that
your car down the street?” he said, “No, we’re walking.”

SGT. ROBERT
CALKINS: And that’s all that
was said.

RUDOLF WEBER: That was all – all that was said that I can remember.

Bugliosi wanted a clock-based timeline that started at midnight and ended one hour later. He set out to prove his timeline. The testimony of the two most important witnesses, however, does not support his timeline. In fact the only person who ever says 'midnight' is Bugliosi. The evidence also suggests that someone may have gone so far as to directly or indirectly influence the testimony of at least two witnesses to make their stories fit the official narrative.

63 comments:

... As in several cases it may be so that Bugs manipulated a few things to make his case work his way. He may have played dirty baseball a time or two. I am not sure if he did in this case or not, although this certainly poses some excellent questions.

But my question is why he did so, and what was the real outcome desired? Is there an implication that he twisted facts and testimony to solidify his case as he really believed it, or that he simply made up a case and created an entire scenario around it to support his own creation as far as motive and the way it was carried out- this being just one small piece of the bigger lie he was molding??

I get confused lol- its the morning buzz after all.

A half an hour here or there in this case matters because? and if they were off about the time frame a little that means??? Bugs lying or coaching witness's is wrong and I get that. But I am asking if there is more than that being implied?

With nobody contesting that they were at Cielo, or that they went to Webers, or that the Parent shooting happened... What is the reason to make anything up?

Nobody is trying to deny that these events did occur. In this case we know from all involved and accused that they did go to Cielo- Tex did shoot Parent, and they did go to Webers after.

Why would Bugs need to change a time-line by 30 minutes or so and what does it really matter? How important to have witnesses be that specific when the convicted were not denying being there? How would this part of the case help him implicate Charlie- because that is the one argument constantly made as to why Bugs made stuff up.

I posted this photo last year, it is not a fake. As far as the time difference goes, it appears as though someone has plugged it in or changed the time at least twice. Below is the only testimony related to the clock in the first trial. The clock was not used in Watson’s trial.***

MR. BUGLIOSI: Directing your attention to the right front passenger seat, do you see a clock-radio?

MR. GRANADO: Yes.

MR. BUGLIOSI: Did you see that radio at the scene?

MR. GRANADO: I did.

MR. BUGLIOSI: Did you pick the radio up and book it, or book it with the Property Division of the Los Angeles Police Department?

MR. GRANADO: No, I believe the detectives -- the investigators -- did that.

MR. BUGLIOSI: You turned the radio over to the detectives at the scene?

MR. GRANADO: Yes.

MR. BUGLIOSI: Do you have that radio with you here in court?

MR. GRANADO: I do.

MR. BUGLIOSI: May I see it?

Your Honor, I have here a radio, a Sony FM-AM Digimatic radio.

May it be marked People’s next in order?

THE COURT: 198 for identification.

MR. BUGLIOSI: Is it 198, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. STOVITZ: What is 197, your Honor?

THE CLERK: The piece of wood.

MR. STOVITZ: Oh, yes, thank you.

MR. BUGLIOSI: You notice this radio also has a clock on the left side, is that correct?

MR. GRANADO: That is correct.

MR. BUGLIOSI: On the right side it is a radio, is that right?

MR. GRANADO: Yes.

MR. BUGLIOSI: And it, of course, has a cord, is that correct?

MR. GRANADO: Yes.

MR. BUGLIOSI: When you found the radio did you look at the time on the radio?

MR. GRANADO: I did.

MR. BUGLIOSI: What time was registered on the radio at that time?

MR. GRANADO: 12:15 a.m.

MR. BUGLIOSI: Directing your attention to the time that is presently on the radio, it says 12:17 a.m. Do you know how it advanced from 12:15 to 12:17 a.m.?

MR. GRANADO: No, I do not.

MR. BUGLIOSI: In any event it was 12:15 a.m. when you saw the radio in Steven Parent’s car, is that correct?

I'm not a 'conspiracy' guy. I'm an 'evidence' guy. My point is not 'Bugliosi lied' or why. It is to point out where the evidence has problems- to me. I don't tend to look at what the murderers have said since the trial- they have good reasons to follow the official history. I try to look at what was said, how it was said (got into evidence) and any objective evidence. That led to this.

Bugliosi wanted a conviction.

I think he was fixated on that clock radio, Jerrold Friedman's phone call and wanted a 'tight' case and a tight timeline. He wanted the screams that Ireland heard to be the victims- that's powerful stuff. The result of all that is that it appears (at least to me) that he made other events fit 12:15-1:00. What difference does it make if it was 12:45-1:30 or 2:15-3? None, everything still happened.

But would there have been a problem if the defense 'saw' this? I think so and I think Bugliosi did too. On another, timeline, issue lets see what Bugliosi said:

"Though Dr. Katsuyama had come through on direct, I was worried about the cross-examination. In his initial report the deputy coroner had the LaBiancas dying on the afternoon of Sunday, August 10— a dozen hours after their deaths actually occurred. This not only contradicted Linda’s account of the events of that second night, it gave the defense an excellent opportunity to go alibi. Conceivably, they could call numerous people who would testify, truthfully, that while horseback riding at Spahn Ranch that Sunday afternoon they had seen Manson, Watson, Krenwinkel, Van Houten, Atkins, Grogan, and Kasabian."

I had a clock radio like that when I was kid, that old fashioned type where the digital time is displayed by rotating little flip plates with the numerals on them.

I remember the mechanism was somewhat fragile, and a bump could advance the digital time by a few minutes. The mechanism was such that if that happened, then plates wouldn't continue to flip forward until the actual time had caught up (presuming the clock is plugged in).

A simple explanation for the time discrepancy could be that in between the clock evidence being collected, and it being photographed, it had encountered some bumps and advanced the little plates inadvertently and unnoticed .

I am thinking like Fiddy- that is an old clock not digital it was handled and moved and easily could have been changed accidentally ( or not). It was the middle of the night and most of these people were sleeping or close to it. Tex and the others had been through a traumatic experience and had scrambled minds which were racing...

these are all little things that when put together leave some room for error. Since nobody disputes who was where or what happened- I fail to understand why the precise timing is of any real importance- except to disprove one of the things which was said to have happened. Proving Bugs might have went out of his way to alter this timeline to make things a little neater and make his case cleaner is fair enough :)

I just want to make sure I understand that is all we are doing in this case and not making a bigger point hinting this is more important for some larger purpose :)

Like this being proof Bugs invented H/S lol Cause thats where it usually leads when we start questioning Bugs motives. Maybe there is a good reason for that? Who knows...

lets say great lawyers called all this into question and proved Bugs was wrong. lets say that Weber had no memory of or could offer no time framelets say nobody heard screams in the night...

Tex/Pat/Susan Linda all said they went to Cielo. They all said Tex Shot Parent and they all admitted to going to Weber- and Weber testified to seeing them.

Are we in a different place? Does the case go another way over 45 minutes here or there?

These are questions I ask myself when confronted with the question of how much fudging did Bugs do? It certainly appears he did some here. I am not questioning that. I just wonder why? It seems unnecessary.

Saint said: "Are we in a different place? Does the case go another way over 45 minutes here or there?"

Nope.

The official story never lined up with the evidence for me and I want to know what really happened. That may be the 'history nerd' in me. I also want to know why the Titanic sank and am likely a very, very small minority. It was a coal bunker fire by the way ;-)

A DA or detective (the more likely suspect IMO) shouldn't be 'helping' a witness 'remember'. Call me naive but I like to hope convictions happen because of the facts. What if there are 100 of these? or take it to a different issue instead of timing- what if Kasabian saw nothing at all after Steven Parent was shot?- do we care or is it 'the ends justify the means' because the end is certainly the 'right' outcome?

Saint said: "These are questions I ask myself when confronted with the question of how much fudging did Bugs do? It certainly appears he did some here. I am not questioning that. I just wonder why? It seems unnecessary."

I agree, yes, it does seem unnecessary from where we stand today. I think the answer is 'at the time he thought it was necessary to get a conviction'. 20-20 hindsight: a pretty big risk for a very small return.

Well considering what this case meant for his life it seems he had pretty good reason to make sure nothing went wrong with his case in hindsight.

But that's not a reason to make stuff up or cheat. To me it matters a little if he did things to manipulate small details as long as it was irrelevant to the big picture. It bothers me a little.

It matters alot if he did ANYTHING to change the big picture- Motive. I do not see that here, but I get why him doing anything "shady" is offensive to some people. It is wrong.

Dreath: We have talked motive before a little. I am not sure what the real motive is. That is why I am not so quick to be confident what the real motive wasn't. But let me ask you the same question I ask everyone else lol

When you say the official story never lined up with the evidence- what doesn't add up?

A dozen or more people who lived with Charlie before and during the crimes testified he spoke about Helter Skelter frequently. All of the people who actually did the killings have said that H/S was ( at least) part of the reason why they were told to do it. They wrote the words at the scene of the crime personally.

When something so bizarre happens, so shockingly, there are going to be some strange coincidences and weird asides. There always are. A few minutes here or there can be explained sometimes by weird happenstance, or faulty memory. But what about the physical evidence doesn't match up with the testimony of the Tate crime? The only person who ever said that night was not to ignite Helter Skelter- was Charlie. The people who went to the house have all said the same thing, and over many years- and there is Physical evidence to support testimony as to H/S being a factor and a topic instigated/promoted by Charlie. Many others back that up as well.

They testified they were told to take knives an knives were found. They were told to take change of clothes- old clothes with blood were found. They testified Tex shot people and the gun was found- along with bullet wounds in several people. they testified to using the hose and the guy came out- and the guy said he came across them. They said they were told to leave signs and there was writing on the walls including the words Helter Skelter....

I really do not know what the real motive is- but as far as the evidence I see- it all points one way to me...

:) Still waiting for that Straight Satans documentary though lol- that will straighten it all out :)

Saint said: "When you say the official story never lined up with the evidence- what doesn't add up?"

You see that #1 in the title, there. I have been sort of taking the first night event by event.

I look at what a witness says. Then I look at the objective evidence. And then I try to see if the testimony (or whose testimony) actually fits with the objective evidence. That is what I mean by 'lines up'.

And from my review much of the testimony and objective evidence just doesn't line up. In order to make it line up you have to start making assumptions. Assumptions about facts that are not in the evidence.

Example: there are only three knives in the car, Kasabian has one, Atkins has one and Krenwinkel has one when they climb the fence. Two get thrown out the window and one is found in a chair= 3 again. How did Watson slash Steven Parent? If you don't make any assumptions the answer must be "he didn't".

I'm not commenting on motives because I personally don't think there is confusion in the evidence regarding the motive. I know many do but I've only gotten confused when I start reading the 'drug burn'-type theories.

I'm not trying to say 'I'm right". I'm just throwing out there what I see from where I sit.

Dreath said: I also want to know why the Titanic sank and am likely a very, very small minority. It was a coal bunker fire by the way ;-) Wait a minute~! Now I'm curious and google the coal bunker fire and what I read makes me more interested in the Titanic's untold story. That's interesting. But so Is your TLB post.

Will someone remind me, did Garretson say they had set the clock radio to the correct time when they plugged it in? By the way I got one of those types of clock radio too when I had a paper route and I would sometimes listen to the minutes flip by when it was almost time to wake up and anticipate which which flipping number would bring music and start my day with KFRC, Dr. Don Rose, quack quack, "Jet" by Paul McCartney, "Benny and the Jets", etc. What a time for popular music.

I just skimmed Garretson's trial testimony, Hump. The question wasn't asked that I could find.

And, yeh I had one of those clock radios too. You brought back a lost memory regarding MY paper route and the audible minute flips leading up to having to brave the elements and get the papers delivered. Thanks for that.

The sequence of events on the night of August 8th was established by Susan Atkins. The same girl who said she murdered Gary Hinman because being cut with a knife was the only way he could get turned on. Is that not reason enough to question the "wild" tale of black clothed assassins in the night ambushing total strangers to carry out a revolutionary act of subversion to cause social turmoil?

When one read her recorded interview with her two attorneys and their question about drugs being taken and what not, it's obvious Caruso wasn't there for the interest of a broke hippie girl. He was involved in this case from the get go. Long before Atkins was even named, one of the dope dealing suspect talked about how "weird" it was that Caruso was "working with Younger".

I believe Atkins confessed to everything when she was just a suspect in Hinman and then her attorneys (in the interest of others) worked with her on a bogus, white washed account and the entire ordeal of confessing her wild tales to anyone with ears was by design.

Bugliosi, knowing or unknowing simply had Linda corroborate it, since it was beneficial for him and the true was probably detrimental to his ambitions.

Why the killer themselves maintained the story is simply because they have to and because it works in their benefit too.

Why 'must' it have been 1:00 if he actually looked at his clock (as he later testified)? Wouldn't it be more consistent with human behavior to simply say 'It was about 1:00 a.m.'?

In some instances, yes, in other instances, no. People talk like this all the time. I often will begin a sentence with "it must've been [whatever time/day/month/year] when....."It's just another way of speaking. Even in 1969 different people spoke in different ways.

What can be said is that the only person who testified that they arrived at midnight was Bugliosi. One might also ask why do they need to arrive at midnight? According to these two witnesses, they didn't

Even in "Helter Skelter" the sounds supposedly heard are so far apart in time that most of them could not possibly have anything to do with the murders ~ if any of them actually did. The guy with the dogs that went mad when they heard gunshots didn't even hear any gunshots. So there is no way of knowing if it was shots his dogs were reacting to. I think Bugliosi and Gentry put in that initial section for drama's sake, with the hope that the reader wouldn't do as we have done over the last few years and dissect sounds and incidents that span from 12.30am all the way to 4.11. After all, it is very dramatic and disturbing, especially if you are reading at night on your own.....

Weber’s house is about 4 minutes from Cielo Drive. So Bugliosi’s timeline is tight. He needs them to pull everything off by 12:56 and be back at the car ready to drive to Weber’s hose. If Steven Parent is murdered a few minutes after 12:15 everything has to happen in less then 40 minutes....Now he has less then 30 minutes

The time element is fascinating and the way Dreath has broken it all down is an exercise in getting to grips with the finer details. However, things the Family say about time I take with a pinch of salt because they weren't journalists out reporting on a caper with an eye on exact timing and chronology. At the end of '69, Leslie told Marvin Part that Pat had said "that they had murdered five people; that they didn’t know there were going to be that many at the house; and they didn’t know who the people were; and there were a whole lot of them.And it happened so quick, and it was a horrible thing. You know, she was shaken up by it.....but Sadie said she’d left her knife there. They said it was done real messy; and it happened in about twenty minutes, you know.I didn’t really get the details too good."She didn't get the details too good......she got the gist of what happened and was told it was over quickly. It's interesting that she mentions that part twice.Susan Atkins' recollections are all over the place but she told Caruso & Caballero, then the Grand Jury that when they returned from the slaughter, Charlie had asked them why they had come back so early. Given that by the time of the trial Susan and Linda had provided details that only someone there would have known and given that they had Tex and Pat's prints {and we know when the doors were washed prior}, I've long wondered at the importance in Bugliosi's mind of the timeline. I guess it helps establish that extra layer of guilt. It should be remembered that the initial 4 defendants all pleaded not guilty to murder and conspiracy so the point about him wanting convictions fits. Every little helps, eh Vince ?Hindsight is such fun.

The sequence of events on the night of August 8th was established by Susan Atkins. The same girl who said she murdered Gary Hinman because being cut with a knife was the only way he could get turned on

She said this to Roseanne Walker in the same phase of time she told Ronnie H and Virginia G that she'd murdered Sharon Tate. Yet interestingly, her sequence of events {such as it is} remains fairly consistent from Graham & Howard to Caballero & Caruso to Bugliosi to the Grand Jury to the debacle of the penalty phase to "Child of Satan."

Is that not reason enough to question the "wild" tale of black clothed assassins in the night ambushing total strangers to carry out a revolutionary act of subversion to cause social turmoil?

I think a few people questioned her wild tales and have done since '69. All her changes and edits didn't help her. But questioning in itself is not a euphemism for "this is untrue." Once Atkins distanced herself from HS and embraced the copycat, she set into motion the process of being forever questioned.

it's obvious Caruso wasn't there for the interest of a broke hippie girl

Were not Atkins' initial lawyers court appointees ?

I believe Atkins confessed to everything when she was just a suspect in Hinman and then her attorneys (in the interest of others) worked with her on a bogus, white washed account and the entire ordeal of confessing her wild tales to anyone with ears was by design

Well, at least you do believe in Svengali mastermind types.....

Bugliosi, knowing or unknowing simply had Linda corroborate it, since it was beneficial for him and the true was probably detrimental to his ambitions

Which truth ? That more than implies Bugliosi deliberately went with something he knew to be untrue.Evidence ?

Why the killers themselves maintained the story is simply because they have to and because it works in their benefit too

As I have pointed out to you on a number of occasions, that does not wash. Krenwinkel, Watson and Atkins {and in his own case, Bobby B} have gone on record in a combo of numerous parole hearings, books and whatnot since at least 1978, showing that they are at a variance with much of the official narrative. They do not accept all of it and last time I looked, nothing had worked for their benefit. Atkins left jail in a box. Watson will be there for at least another 5 years and Krenwinkel has been locked up longer than any woman in California history {and Bobby longer than the lot of them}.That's some benefits !

In somewhat typical fashion Mr. Bugliosi offered that about the clock:

"Although it could have been a remarkable coincidence, the logical presumption was that Parent had set it while demonstrating it to Garretson, then unplugged it just before he left."

I would imagine that's what one would do if they had a new fangled digital clock back then and they were trying to show how it worked. You'd set it to the time and show the alarm system.The only real importance of the clock as far as I can see is that it was the reason Steve Parent was up at Cielo {despite the speculation of the gay tryst that has done the rounds for a few years}. We don't know exactly when the murders happened but we have some indications. Bugliosi said something interesting about Rudolf Weber. He commented that "he had an excellent memory, told exactly what he remembered, and didn’t try to fill in what he did not." Whereas Bugliosi did like to fill in where there appeared to be gaps. He does as much with his words about the clock, about the murders being committed "in the dead of night" {driving home the Beatle lyric connection from "Blackbird"}, about Linda's driving licence and why she was picked, about Bruce in relation to Joel Pugh's death and his assumption that Joel was a former Family member and Sandy's ex~husband, with the Hatami incident, the way he assumes Charlie must have come back in order to be seen by Altobelli and one can even see this in his earlier assumption that Linda would only have seen Steven Parent's murder and no others. He was suspicious about the death of Randy Starr and the fire in Paul Watkins' camper. He says that when there were no answers during the trial, he admitted it. But he tried to cover all gaps. In retrospect, it's partly what has given rise to people's suspicions that he was batting on a sticky wicket. Control freaks bring that out in people. Especially conspiracy theorists !

Grim, all I would ask you to do is compare his use of words- his pacing- the sequence to that of his testimony at trial

Dreath, do you have access to transcripts of some of the trial testimony ? There are a few at CieloDrive.com and there used to be loads at Truth on Tate/LaBianca before it disappeared into the ether. I'd love to have a look at more of them.

I have some 'parts' from 'Truth' but they are isolated on specific things (as in one page here or there) I was looking at at the time and I have dozens of pages of 'witness outlines' from those days which are absolutely useless without the transcript.

There is CieloDrive and a little bit at 'the murders of August 1969' but most of theirs is from CieloDrive.

Go back and look for a link to Brett's old site. It can still be accessed I'm told. You will find any transcript that still can be found there. I no longer remember if I read that specific one but it sounds familiar

We voted the same Patty :) I watched that BEL Documentary over the weekend and it is incredible! They interview surviving members and they take a recent photo at end. You will love it- although not as detailed as books- they show some vintage photos and give you a very unigue perspective from people who were on the scene at the time...

well the crazy clown won! i should be shocked but im not..I mean this is same country that voted in George W TWICE for fucks sake! Strange days indeed....Dam...I miss Robert H , I would love to read his tboughts on this...

There was extensive coverage all through the night on TV and on the two radio stations that I listen to. In a few places where I did early deliveries {early like before 7am} there were people on the phones talking to only God knows whom and from where and all the recriminations and analysis were fascinating to eavesdrop on and listen to. One would've thought it was a British election. I thought one guy was going to hit me when Trumpy got to around 258 and I said it wasn't yet over !The pundits were talking about this being the biggest shock since whenever, but I honestly cannot see why anyone is surprised. If one listens to what people were saying pre~election, for me the surprise would have been Hillary winning. Me, I'm ambivalent.We've had some grand election doodahs here recently with the Scottish referendum, last year's general election, Brexit and now this.I love elections and their ilk. Much more exciting than the football.

Penny Lane I miss Robert, too, and would love to hear his commentary on this. I was listening to Thom Hartmann this morning and I think he nailed it. People wanted change and Hillary represented the status quo. She also did not help herself by stooping to The Trumpkin's level with the negative rhetoric. Of course, she was blindsided by the late announcement by Comey that there were more emails. There were not more emails, just redundancy.

I'm sick over the whole deal and hope I will still be able to collect my social security and continue with my Medicare. Yellow used to be my least favorite color, now it's orange........

Yeah this was a rough election. I only got two votes. That is the last time I use mom to be my campaign manager. I think my ground game is going to have to improve for 2020 if I even want to make the debates...

Anyway, I am a male who has no kids and never will- so abortion is not important to me.

I dont own a gun or want one- but I don't care how many you have- so that is not important to me either ( although I do think we should at least make sure we are not selling them to people who have proven not trustworthy)

I have had insurance through work for my entire adult life- so Obamacare has never affected me and it wont bother me if they repeal it- so that is not important to me either.

I made communion as a catholic but stopped going to church in 4'th grade and don't care at all about religion.

Now if any/all of these issues matter to you- that should have guided who you should have voted for- because aside from all the noise about Hillary's email, and Donald's mouth- that is what really was at stake here. The rest is nonsense. You need the House and Senate to get anything done and nobody was going to work with Hillary anyway, nor is donald jsut going to walk in and start making new laws on his whim. The supreme court was always what this election was about after Scalia died.

Two people who have both broke rules to enrichen themselves, both of them have secrets. here was the difference to me:

Trump made his money in life screwing people, cheating, and taking advantage of everything and anyone he could to line his own pockets.

Clinton lined her pockets and took advantage of a position she was only in due to a life of helping people. She spent many years working her way up the political ladder. nobody was paying her or Bill big money right out of school. It was only after they had risen to a very high level. To get there they did alot of service along the way.

If you gotta pick between two self centered people who have been selfish and shady-

Do you pick the one who screwed others for his money and has no experience, or the one who made her money as a result of a life of helping people and acquiring experience? Or do you vote for me next time?

I think most people just decided they were both bad people and that gave them reasons to excuse anything that either said or did. Hillary was not ready to fight in the gutter, and Trump took her there. He won. It wont change my life much at all. But- I am excited to see if his supporters hold him accountable when Mexico does not pay for a wall, or when we don't ban an entire religion, or when they loose there insurance- and realize that this is a much more complicated issue than it seems and it takes awhile to get new coverage or a new system in place, or when Trumps private financial portfolio becomes available and we see what a cheat he has been in black and white, or when people realize that his tax breaks mean literally a few dollars a pay check to average Joe- but millions to his family and those like him each year.

Will they care? I think not much lol

Reminds me of another group of followers who only see their leader in one light no matter what that leader says or does, and regardless of how he acted to woman and minorities, or even other people just like themselves...

Tell them to go for it, my 5 year old is called Sadie sue ( space between I hasten to add, not one of them double barrelled things like Bobby Joe) and she's as cool as fuck. I'd post a picture but her in bed would kill me. Commiserations to our friends across the water strange times ahead.

Yes, its called 'sentence reduction credits'. Behavior is part of it but he could also get a reduction for participation in the drug treatment program (and satisfactory progress) or a 6-12 month vocational program.

I saw a friend of mine who practices criminal law at the courthouse this morning after I looked this up. The skinny- he'll likely do about 18 months- unless he screws up.

There was a humorous sidebar here I had a hard time figuring out. He also was charged with contempt for 'violating a no contact order' and 'consumption of alcohol'. I thought at first that on October 17th he got drunk (violation of his previous probation) and called the victim, Nicole Monfort (violation #2). But then I realized the 'alcohol violation' was due to the bike offense. What struck me as odd was that on October 17th he was in custody.

Then it came to me- he must have used the jail phone to call his wife (?) which violated the 'no contact' order. Now that to me is priceless.

You'd really have to be out of your mind blotto to try to forcibly take a bicycle from a young girl and threaten her. I'm with Deb, I hope the treatment takes this time. Problem is, jail isn't adverse to some people, it's just where they live from time to time.

Reading Garretson's July 24, 1970 testimony I notice Bugliosi made no attempt to establish the time by what the clock radio said-he didn't ask whether they plugged it in and whether they set it to the correct time, he simply asked Garretson what time Parent came, what time he made the phone call and what time he left.

You know, I get Mr. Esposito's comments via e-mail before they get removed and I have to say to him: I'm sorry, I wish I could help and I wish I could make it better for you.

I deal on a daily basis wth many angry people but have seldom come across someone who was so filled with rage and hatred and had so little to offer- at a blog far removed from politics, except those feelings.

I wish him well and a happy future and hope someday he might find peace and through that no longer need to level blame on others for whatever predicament he finds himself in at this stage of his life.

I for one will pray to my God (who appears to differ from his) that he might find a way to open his heart to love for his fellow man and let that replace the hatred that consumes him.

Well Dreath, thank you for the blessing, things 'are' better for me now, and for more than half the country as well. We now have a most dynamic & glorious strong dominant White MALE in the White house. This alone seems to be the reason most of the hatred is actually coming from the anti Trump crusade. Please, I am not bitter towards anyone, on the contrary I'm saying to all the Lilliputians who need play doe & service dogs after the Trump victory, to get over it. Since you've given me a blessing, I will give you one. May God bless the late great Leonard Cohen, Bohemian, folk, singer song writer & poet, a beautiful MAN, may God receive him in heaven.

And from my review much of the testimony and objective evidence just doesn't line up. In order to make it line up you have to start making assumptions. Assumptions about facts that are not in the evidence

I understand that and agree with that to a large extent but running alongside that, sometimes, it's the other way around, ie, something has happened and the "objective evidence" fits into what has happened. An example are the fingerprints of Watson & Krenwinkel. Those prints do not prove a thing other than at some point after the Tuesday, Pat was there and that at some point after Mrs Chapman washed the door that Friday, Tex was there. The prints become significant only because of the testimony of Atkins and later, Kasabian. They are the ones that sometimes put flesh on the bones of possible assumptions but some assumptions may actually turn out to be accurate.

Example: there are only three knives in the car, Kasabian has one, Atkins has one and Krenwinkel has one when they climb the fence. Two get thrown out the window and one is found in a chair= 3 again. How did Watson slash Steven Parent? If you don't make any assumptions the answer must be "he didn't"

In her Grand Jury testimony, Atkins says that each of the women had a knife and she believes Watson had one too or as the dialogue went;

A:and to my best knowledge I believe Tex had a knife. You will see why I am not sure whether he had or not, but it makes sense that he did.

Q: All three of you girls had a knife; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Tex said in his trial "Charlie called me over behind the car, down at the far end of the ranch, and handed me a gun and a knife and he said for me to take the gun and the knife and to go up where Terry Melcher used to live and to kill everybody in the house, as gruesome as I could, or something to that effect" so the mystery of the 4th knife isn't necessarily one although Tex's words are highly dodgy because in the next set of sentences, he lies his balls off about Linda driving. In a way, one can see why so many have nothing but disdain for Manson's conviction, because the only direct statement linking him to any orders to actually kill on Cielo night are those allegedly issued to Watson and where Watson testifies to this, it's sandwiched between lies, further lies and more lies !

Grim said: "You will see why I am not sure whether he had or not, but it makes sense that he did."

Take closer look at what she is saying. She does not actually say he had a knife. She is as confused on the subject as anyone else. She says 'it makes sense that he did' because of what she saw him do that night. At lease that is how I read it.

and said........"one can see why so many have nothing but disdain for Manson's conviction, because the only direct statement linking him to any orders to actually kill on Cielo night are those allegedly issued to Watson and where Watson testifies to this, it's sandwiched between lies, further lies and more lies !"

As soon as Manson gets in the car with the murderers from the first night, the second night, and drives the car, even if he did nothing else- and the LaBianca's die- Manson is going to prison for the rest of his life.

Take closer look at what she is saying. She does not actually say he had a knife. She is as confused on the subject as anyone else

I agree. No one remembers Tex having a knife until around the time Abigail and Wogiciech were getting stabbed by him. There again, no one to this day recalls Tex shooting Frykowski even once, let alone twice. I was just illustrating that some things that seem like a mystery aren't necessarily and that even the perps didn't necessarily see everything or catch all the events in chronological order.

As soon as Manson gets in the car with the murderers from the first night, the second night, and drives the car, even if he did nothing else- and the LaBianca's die- Manson is going to prison for the rest of his life

Perhaps so {why does this not apply to Clem who, after all, was in the conversation with Charlie & the killers after they returned from Cielo} but mine wasn't really an attempt at a legal point. After all, Charlie had already been convicted and sentenced to death before Tex even went to trial, without any statement from Tex. It was an offhand observation really, none of the women could say Charlie gave them direct orders to kill that night. The only person that does is Tex and he says all of that when he's trying to present himself as mentally ill in his 9th July '71 psych interview and during his trial when he's trying to show diminished responsibility but years later confesses that he was lying in that period, which could possibly throw some doubt over anything he said in that period. I can understand why many refuse to go with the Bugliosi version of things.For the record, I believe Tex on that one. But you know, even if you take Charlie's words as true, that he "told" them that "owed him" to "do something" to get Bobby out of prison, as important as what he said is what they understood him to be saying and his response when they returned. It happens in life all the time, people say something and it's understood by their hearers because the hearers know the speaker. If I say to my son "is the bathroom gleaming ?" he'll know that I mean "go and do your chores" without me having to actually say it. It's interesting that Pat says she committed murder because she wanted to be loved by Charlie and was afraid of the consequences if she didn't ~ yet on Cielo night, he never told her to, directly. And she says she never found out the agenda until they were actually at Cielo. She understood enough however, to do it. She knew that if she was told to do what Tex said by Charlie, that that meant, in Family dynamics, that whatever Tex did was coming from Charlie. Bobby acts in an almost identical fashion in understanding those words "you know what to do." He doesn't blame Charlie for giving him an order to kill because as far as he's concerned, Charlie didn't. His issue with Charlie is that Charlie made a resolved situation into something almost unresolvable {if you believe his account of Hinman}. But he sure as the sun gets hot understood what Charlie was saying by "you know what to do." Having been shown by Charlie how a "man" sorts out his problem, "you know what to do" only meant one thing.Ha ha, I'm in a stream of consciousness mode tonight !

Out of all the timeline demarcations, I find Tim Ireland and Rudolf Weber to be most likely accurate. I think the killers arrived about 12:10, Tex cut the wires, they drove back down, and arrived back at the gate on foot at about 12:20. I never believed the 'time' on Parent's clock radio to be anything reliable or relevant; I doubt he set the exact time for Garretson while demonstrating the unit. It may have taken the killers several minutes for all 4 to even get over the fence on the side hill as Susan got hung up on the fence by the crotch of her jeans, and Tex stumbled and fell back down at least once on his attempt to scale the incline (perhaps due to the cowboy boots he had on, perhaps due to being stoned). The 12:30 to 1:00 estimation of Mrs. Kott is a little off, IMO, but no doubt the shots she heard was the killing of Parent. I think the killings lasted no more than 25 minutes, and do allow for the 12:40 screams heard by Tim Ireland at the outside edge of the timeline. Now, I've mentioned something before elsewhere and I'll do it again here. There is no 'ravine' or 'mountain' on Benedict Canyon Road between Cielo and Portola Drive where Weber lived, at least as I can see on Google Earth. And since there is no indication that the bloody clothing or weapons were in the car when they stopped to use Weber's hose, I have to believe the clothing and weapons were dumped by then. Therefore, the killers drove past Portola going north on BCR, past the first switchback, past the second switchback, and then dumped the clothing just past there. You can see it on an old original video clip of Al Wiman talking about where the clothing was found. This would mean that the killers drove past Portola, continued on for about 5 minutes or so, dumped the clothing (and presumably the knives), then turned around and drove back on BCR toward the Tate house, stopping at Portola to use the hose. Why they would do this is anyone's guess. But my mental timeline, as measured against the testimony of those in the car, always said the clothing was gone before the Portola stop, and as mentioned, there is no hillside between Cielo and Portola. So add another 10 minutes of mystery time. Scaled the gate at Cielo 12:20. Immediately shoot Steve.Kill the occupants of the main house by 12:45 (Ireland's time hearing Frykowski, I've always believed it was Frykowski he heard, could understandably be slightly off).Back to the car by 12:50 at the latest.6:20 seconds (from Al Wiman) to change clothes, a couple more minutes to dump them, and reverse back to Portola and turn the car around to park at Weber's at or a tad past 1:00. Solved!